Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Global warming aside, its sure nicer breathing clean air than the output of coal plants and car exhaust. Maybe that alone should be reason to look for alternatives.
How and by how much and to which evidence do you properly support this conclusion? Spurious correlation is not a valid means of establishing causation.
You keep calling for a need to change, an urgency to adjust, but you refuse to acknowledge that the premise to which you base your conclusions on may not be valid (or severely misinformed) and so acting on false information can be just as bad as the danger it proclaims to avoid.
The fear you mention isn't new and the predictions of doom keep being revised to deal with the lack of evidential support to their claims. This is why the details matter. Otherwise we might as well simply carry a sign through the streets calling out that the end of the world is near.
What you keep missing is that I'm not advocating anything except a resonable solution to life on the margin, supported by fossil fuels. Even if the doomsayers convice the entire world to "do something," and we know that won't happen, we're stuck with our environment. I don't happen to like what we're doing to it.
What you keep missing is that I'm not advocating anything except a resonable solution to life on the margin, supported by fossil fuels. Even if the doomsayers convice the entire world to "do something," and we know that won't happen, we're stuck with our environment. I don't happen to like what we're doing to it.
So basically, cleaner and more efficient? Ok, I think most would agree, but the problem comes from "how" we approach that. If it is by "encouraging" such directions by government through incentives and the like, sure... good approach. Those who seek such directions gain a benefit. Those who do not, well... they lose nothing, but they gain nothing either.
I am all for that, but that is not what is being suggested. Reasonable is within the bounds of our individual freedoms. Regulations that force the "solutions" are not acceptable. Penalties assessed to those who do not "choose" the solution is nothing more than being forced to the solution anyway.
So I would agree that the "details" or "facts" of the issue are probably unimportant if we are taking a "suggestive" approach to cleaner and more efficient (produces the same, requires less) as it makes sense to seek it as an improvement.
When it goes beyond such to the point of dictation, the "details" and "facts" are without a doubt the most important. Many would certainly agree with urgency if the facts were properly established and pointed to a need for action. Many would likely support "giving up" or contributing to an expedient solution which would benefit all considering the results of such facts and the requirement of action.
The problem is while you are simply suggesting a reasonable approach, the movement is not. The movement is proclaiming urgency, demanding compliance and establishing itself as a power of control all the while disregarding any assessment of the "facts" and "details" they base their position on.
Until the failings of their position is adequately shown for the fallacy it is, there can be no honest solutions applied as they will be marred with the corruption of this fraud.
There may be local and short term variations but overall global warming is an observable long term trend.
The question is whether man pumping crud into the air contributes to it. Whether it does or not - isn't it a good idea to reduce the amount of crud we pump into the air?
"crud" 'a substance that is dirty and disgusting'. The issue being debated is "CO2", which is neither dirty or disgusting, but is as vital to life on earth as is 02 and H2O ... (that would by oxygen and water).
And, the only debate that exists is between self serving liars who want another tax vehicle to charge the world, and the brain dead who could be hip deep in snow in Miami, and still believe the nonsense being sold them. Oh ... it used to be "global warming", but now the mantra is "climate change". Guess what ... the climate always changes ... always has changed ... and will continue to change, whether or not you pay a tax for it.
For the intellectually challenged, core ice samples at the pole show definitively that warming and cooling trends have existed for thousands of years, and is a natural cycle driven primarily by the SUN. That climate record shows that there have been several periods in time that have been far warmer than it is now, with C02 levels hundreds of times greater than they are now. Guess what? Obviously, the ice is still there ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to make these scientific measurements. But Al Gore says the ice is going to disappear if you don't pay a carbon tax?
Can anyone smell a "Snake Oil Salesman" ? Or perhaps just a dirty rotten snake?
It's the SUN ....That's why it gets cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer ... a little scientific information I was taught in the 4th grade.
It also explains why the other planets in the solar system have been warming and are now cooling ... the SUN ... unless of course you believe that the little green men on mars are also driving SUVs
There are two reasons for the big scam of global warming ..
1) History has shown that the greater the global temperature in the past, the more life thrived on the planet through greater expanse of growing seasons and regions, providing an expanding eco system with more food for animals and thus, more food for humans. The Eugenicists that aspire to the need and desire for population control and reduction find that to be counter to their agenda for reducing global populations. So they want to convince the dumb, useless eaters (that's what they consider most of us) to volunteer to help them under the transparently ridiculous anthrpogenic global warming scam.
2) They want you to also fund your own destruction via a global carbon tax.
And apparently there are enough self hating idiots in this world who will gladly accommodate them by simply not thinking.
Being both spekptical and confused about the alleged global warming issue, I sat down and broke-out the calculator a few months ago and did some math. If you take the age of our planet (about 4.6 billion years) and then factor in the very, very brief time that mankind has been able to accurately track our weather patterns andglobal temps. (maybe 100 years?) I reckoned that the comparison was roughly equivalent to having a 50 year-old man go outside for 10 minutes on his 50th birthday and observe the weather. And then making a prediciction on it's "latest pattern" using that miniscule timespan.
This would seem to hardly present a credible test period.
And yeah, down here in normally sunny and tropical Austin, TX, we've been 10-20 degrees below normal for the past month.
You got it brother ... I'm here in Austin and it's been a bit nippy. But pay no attention to the sound of teeth chattering ... the ice caps are melting and the polar bears (best swimmers on earth) are drowning.
If you get confused, just remember that Up = Down ... Warming = cooler, and war = peace.
I notice that when you don't believe in the global warming theory, you are made out to be the crackpot.
That's because the posters who deny GW have nothing to back up their opinion except to demonstrate their complete lack of scientific knowledge. They don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. They don't seem to understand that even the slightest temp change could have a huge impact. They don't seem to understand how the research is done.
It's simple Chemistry. The green house gases produced by humans stay in the athmosphere of the planet. They reflect the heat the planet is naturally producing. That means the heat can't escape and the planet warms up. Without the green house gases this wouldn't be happening. Our planet produces a lot of heat, obviously.
That's because the posters who deny GW have nothing to back up their opinion except to demonstrate their complete lack of scientific knowledge. They don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. They don't seem to understand that even the slightest temp change could have a huge impact. They don't seem to understand how the research is done.
I didn't know City Data was such a hangout for scientists. You're right...I don't know all the research. Neither do 99.8% of anyone else. The funny part is that whatever the pro-global warmers throw out, you can search around and find a rebuttal. So who is right???
I notice that when you don't believe in the global warming theory, you are made out to be the crackpot.
Funny. Because it used to be the global warming theorists that were the crackpots. Then again, Galileo and the whole "the Sun is the center of the solar system" crowd were crackpots at one time, too. Not to mention that gravity thing is still just a theory!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
